internetfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Bloody-Disgusting
Non-Encyclopedic Entries Please do not post non-encyclopedic information onto this page. Opinion-based information is not allowed.--Cw1925 06:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Archived Discussions For space for future discussions, the previous discussions have been archived. :Stop spamming the page. This is your last warning.--Cw1925 04:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Oh no,final warning? Whatever will I do? I'm not giving you the benifit of a final warning. A notice has already been sent to the Wikia staff about your blatent censorship. I told you,I'm not letting you get away with sweeping the hard truth under the rug. The following has been sent via the contact form: "Hello, I'd like to report an incident of blatant censorship on the part of a Wiki article creator. http://internet.wikia.com/wiki/Bloody-Disgusting I've made two attempts at adding a section that covers the controversial nature and events of the website covered in the above article that would be most beneficial for those unfamiliar with the site to read up on. The first time it was deleted on the grounds that it was "non encyclopedic and opinion based information" due to none of the claims being sourced. Despite this I informed the creator that everything added was factual, to wit he replied with a few of the reasons (such as length) why he deleted it that I guarantee was grossly spun for his benefit and the benefit of the site's reputation. He then told me to read up on how to properly edit articles, and so I did and pointed out several points from your many sections of article editing guidelines, that can be observed by going into the archived page of the article discussion, that proved that it was well within my right and bounds to be able to add my contribution to the article. The second time I added the same contribution only this time I had the linked factual references to back them up. Despite me providing these sources and earlier providing the editing guidelines that showed I could add my contribution, it was deleted again (although oddly enough, the sources stayed) and I was told to "stop spamming the article" and that this was my last warning. This is nothing more than a blatantly biased abuse of Wikia editing guidelines that is designed to filter out any negative criticism towards the site in question even if there is factual evidence that backs it up. I've tried pointing this out to him in the discussion for the article, but to no avail. I request something be done about this at the earliest convenience. Thank you." :This is not a place for revealing personal pasts. This is not a place to get personal revenge of any kind. If you feel like contributing, please do so in an encyclopedic, factual and non-personalized manner. Obviously, you've never edited an article. I understand that Wikia is less strict than Wikipedia due to the less administration. But it still will not be tolerated. If you feel that this information needs to be revealed, please do so in a blog or journal where it is more appropriate.--Cw1925 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC) This is not a place for revealing personal pasts. Yea actually,it is... This is not a place to get personal revenge of any kind. Really? Is that what I'm doing? Huh...I guess thats why I'm including other incidents THAT HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ME? One of which actually makes BD look good (blacklisting Nick Palumbo)? Wow...you're really thick headed... If you feel like contributing, please do so in an encyclopedic, factual and non-personalized manner. We've been down this road already...I AM doing so in an encyclopedic,factual,and non-personalized manner...the sources I provided PROVE it's encyclopedic and factual and the careful wording I used shows it's non-personalized...you fucking moron... Obviously, you've never edited an article. And that means what exactly? Go back into the archived discussions where I bring up all the points from the Wikia editing guidelines that show that I did it properly when you arrogantly told me to read up on how to edit articles...and as it turned out,those points made your action of deleting the contribution erronous,hence why it's been reported. I understand that Wikia is less strict than Wikipedia due to the less administration. But it still will not be tolerated. Thats not your decision to make...you created the article,but unless there is a 100% CLEAR act of VANDALISM,which I've already shown that my case isn't,then your rights of censoring are denied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages "A simple guideline for simple reverting is that it works best for, and is really intended as, a tool against CLEAR vandalism. So save it for that! In cases other than vandalism, somebody is trying to be constructive. Even if they are doing it badly, and even if they are completely and foolishly wrong, there are usually more polite and constructive ways to deal with them than simply returning the article back to the pristine way (you think) it should remain. So, here's the time to think of better solutions. If you're tempted to revert for anything but clear vandalism, take a deep breath; it may be better to discuss it on the talk page or build on the previous edit with a new edit of your own. It may be even better to simply do nothing for twenty-four hours while you cool down. Reverting isn't always collaborative editing, but often a cheap shortcut. (And, it doesn't help that you're limited in space for your revert "edit summary" comment. Over-succinctness may lead to rude-sounding stuff.) Be careful if a revert touches off a revert war. If a revert war begins, then collaboration is not working, and editing the article boldly by reverting is not collaboration. Instead it attempts to force one editor's will on the other editors, which will never work. Such edits will not survive. The "correctness" or "truthfulness" of the edit is irrelevant at this point" If you feel that this information needs to be revealed, please do so in a blog or journal where it is more appropriate. No...it's plenty appropriate here...the only reason why it's "not appropriate" to you is because you have your lips wrapped firmly around BD's penis...and that kind of biast behaviour reguarding articles that are open for any sort of constructive editing,positive or negative,is what won't be tolerated. Response to email I recieved this email from somebody on the Wikia support team: I'm afraid this is not the place for this feud. You will have to work constructively with the other editor to decide between you how to write this article. Wikia is not Wikipedia, and has different possibilities for articles, "Neutral Point of View" is an option on Wikia, not a given. But articles still require cooperation and collaboration, even when the authors have widely different views. And often NPOV is the best way to achieve that. I suggest you look more specifically at the content that each of you wants and doesn't want in the article. For example, perhaps you can agree that the forum has disputes, and that there should be examples of this. But at the same time, maybe you would agree that specifics are not always helpful, especially when individuals are mentioned. Try breaking down the section, and try to find areas that you can both agree on. And remember that collaboration usually involves both sides making concessions. I have written this same mail to both of you, and I trust you will be able to work together on this to make a balanced and useful article. Regards, sannse How in the hell do you think that just because I list MY example,which just so happens to be one of the most well known in a series of controversies BD has been involved with,that I'm bringing the feud here? If that were the case,why would I even bother listing other instances of controversy on the site that had absolutly nothing to do with my feud with them,NOT TO MENTION at least 2 instances that BD was in the right over,which makes them look good? That sounds like a display of fair and balanced neutrality to me. For the record,the feud I have with them has carried over to only 1 other site besides mine by my own doing and thats Horror Boards...Dreamin Demon moderator swivel was the one that carried it over to Dreamin Demon,not me. Other than that instance at Horror Boards,the feud stays on my site and goes nowhere else. This is part of the reason as to why I neglected to add reference sources when I first made the contribution,because then I would have to link to my site,which would make it look like I was trying to get people on my side and gain publicity for my board. "Neutral Point of View" is only an option on Wikia,and not a given? Is that why it's a key policy for proper editing of an article for BOTH sites? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that are attributable to reliable published source(s). You say Wikia is not Wikipedia,but if these guidelines don't hold true to Wikia as well,then why did the author of this Wikia article link me to those Wikipedia editing guidelines,stating that the same rules apply to BOTH sites? Furthermore,why can't I find ANY distinct help article on Wikia that focusses on guidelines for editing just Wikia articles if there are differences like Neutral Point of View only being an option and not a given? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Wikipedia already has article editing guidelines listed and Wikia just goes by those guidelines like the author stated,would it? Sorry to burst your bubble,but if I'm going to give examples of disputes,I have to provide the specifics of them,otherwise important details in the examples are left out which makes the examples pretty useless. For example,if I just say that Nick Palumbo and his films are blacklisted from Bloody-Disgusting without stating the specifics of why,that makes Bloody-Disgusting look bad. It's not that I have a problem with making them look bad,but doing so in that instance wouldn't be fair,balanced,and neutral because they had every right to blacklist him and his movies for the specific reasons given. And since I have to provide specifics in that example,in order to continue being fair,I have to provide specifics for all the examples I give. And I really doubt that a collaborative compromise would even fly with the Wikia article author,because as he advised me,I should leave any and all negative criticisms of BD on a blog...THAT is the reason why I sent a notice to the contact form. He didn't just want me to take out specific details,he wanted no sort of negative critisism towards the site or any negative instances about the site OF ANY KIND AT ALL mentioned in the article,which is not his position to dictate: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Ownership The wikis are owned by the communities. No one user owns any Wikia. Founders are those who requested a wiki be created, but ownership of that wiki resides with the community as a whole, not only with the founder. But you know what,whatever...I'm done with this issue as it's no longer worth my time and effort. Eventhough it's blatently obvious that now even the staff of Wikia are excusing this,which goes directly against the guidelines they're supposed to enforce,I know at this point I'm fighting a losing battle. Enjoy your article thats completely free of any valid negativity and/or critisism aimed towards the site and free of those that wish to express it in the article just like negativity and/or critisism on any other given subject is freely and fairly expressed in many different articles dedicated to those subjects. Heil Bloody-Disgusting! Kefka